Favorite actual/wished for fantasy character that wouldn't work well with D&D rules

[Celebrim]

I disagree. I think players need to stop wanted to play a "Fighter who shoots a bow" and just accept the fact that they really want to play a Ranger or a Rogue. There are some trappings that might not fit your total concept, but not enough that you can't overcome them.

Well, there is not much I can say in response to that, particularly since you also make no attempt to justify that opinion. You either agree or disagree.

I will say that I don't even find 'Fighter who shoots a bow' or 'Ranger' or 'Rogue' to be a concept, and anyone who comes to me with 'I want to play a [insert class here]' will find that I will say, "That's great but you need to worry first about your concept, and then we can worry about how you might best mechanically achieve it."

Personally, I want to give players as few obstacles to overcome in realizing their concept as possible. AFAIC, about the only justifiable obstacles are the need to maintain a reasonable degree of balance. That is to say, I think you ought to be able to have what you want, it just might not be at the price you want to pay.

 

[Nonei]

I disagree. I think players need to stop wanted to play a "Fighter who shoots a bow" and just accept the fact that they really want to play a Ranger or a Rogue. There are some trappings that might not fit your total concept, but not enough that you can't overcome them.

And if a new player came into my game and said 'I want to be an archer', I might suggest ranger or rogue. But if they don't want to be a skill monkey or a woodsman, then they probably should be able to be a 'fighter who shoots a bow'.

Of course, we'd talk about what else they wanted to do with the character and who the character is first, since class is not equivalent to character concept. But essentially, if someone wants to be a fisticuff brawler with a bonded wolf at his side or a streetwise rogue with a knack for healing, or whatever other concept they think up, then I would like to be able to say "Ok, why not!"

 

[Garthanos]

And if a new player came into my game and said 'I want to be an archer', I might suggest ranger or rogue. But if they don't want to be a skill monkey or a woodsman, then they probably should be able to be a 'fighter who shoots a bow'.

The possibility for an Archer are pretty extensive.

I have a ranger with Dungeoneering (not Nature) and consider it he learned about monsters at his aunts knee she was a long time adventurer ... he is a wandering duelist hoping to prove he is up to her standards... with nice intimidate ability cause he likes the bully boy style. ... His class is ranger and he is a king of archers.. and this has been doable for a very long time (since the phb came out) its not something just added. The nature boy schtick is optional if the character doesnt feel like a fighter who shoots a bow.. I am really uncertain why. Reskin elf as a gifted human with incredible perception cause I dont like pointy ears that is all... and tell stories how he was never really trained with the bow he just seemed born knowing it.

Other classes with Archer build components.... Bard the true skill monkey with a dash of prophet see where the target will be not where it is., Seeker a true nature boy with nature boy archery magics on top... an Avenger who brings the word divine vengeance on the end of an arrow to a head... and a Warlord who uses a really heavy big bow using strength and snap shots to help guides his allies from the rear. Grab a touch of Inevitable shot from the seeker with a multiclass if you want to feel a touch like the best archer.

And some of these could very efficiently be taken in various hybrid combinations.,,, mostly attribute delimited.

And most of all... these are default flavors and extremely amenable to change... for instance that divine vengeance bit... some of my favorite Avengers skin there religion skill as Mysticism (and do learn about the religions of others) but are atheists whose goals are dominated by strong earthly causes... but who are possessed by the spirit of vengeance they try desparately to control it rather like an anti-berzerker. They fight with a focused style like somebody who duels instead of works at war... This is quite different than the default flavor of outcast monastic religious assassins.

My spell sword in plate armor recently built is a Paladin / Invoker --- with no Religion skill training no Healing skill or healing powers but does have some strong superstitious inclinations he carries around what he calls a soul stone he thinks of it as a good luck charm and has carved the symbol of Avandra in it and uses it to focus his magic(it is his holy symbol) some of his magics are skinned as raw luck(usually paladin ones)....but most of them he sees as "true magic".

The players handbook puts it right in the players hands to envision for themselves how there abilities work.

Just realized how I removed religion a lot in the above examples ;-) The best class for a historic feeling priest of Odin is in my opinion the Warlord a version where you are in the thick of it perhaps a mostly standard Bravura build but by taking the religion skill... or a simple multiclass for the rune priest ( student of divine runes) and he might need ritual caster feat to finish the priestly flavor... if you wanted a wilder version I could get a once a day berzerk effect with a quick barbarian multiclass and take a background that made sure you had the religion skill option. Warlords inspirarational gifts can easily be couched in terms of Odin quickening the hearts of the characters allies.

 

[Garthanos]

More on subject a design system for characters needs ways to get grouping of things so swift design can be done it can also have other benefits. In HERO they had a concept called Package deals they were a way for the GM to give discounts when the player chose ability sets that the DM thought went together well... effectively a package deal represented any arbitrary grouping it might be membership in an organization or race or profession or whatever was appropriate. It allowed DM to influence with a carrot the design space of the characters.

 

[Chrono22]

^Indeed. I have an idea, why don't we call them Kits! So you could have a fighter-kit, a wizard kit, a thief kit. Or just about any other kit a person could imagine or create using the mechanics... all of this is doable using a point-buy system.
If classes are merely collections or groupings of similar mechanics, and don't push certain roles, why use them at all? It seems to me, 4e would be more fun using a generic class-based system. The powers in it are interchangeable enough.
Tracking all of the possible mechanical combinations of a roleplaying game is a futile endeavor. The collective will of the optimizers is smarter than you, mr. designer. Equally futile is putting the rails down on those combinations with class-based limitations. If the players and GM want to change or abandon the rules, they will. And sooner or later, mr. designer overlooks something.
A decent compromise is to have a sturdy and flexible core mechanic. It needs to be expansive enough to cover all the main bases of play, but detailed enough to handle the corner cases that arise. Savage Worlds does this somewhat to good effect. You don't want to have to do work to make the game function? Then why are you a GM?

This obsession with reducing the tabletop RPG to the point that it can play itself is stupid. As was said earlier, the lowest common denominator is low. I have no interest in playing a game where my presence, input and ideas have no consequence on the overall direction of the game (mechanically). This was a sticking point for me with 4e... the lethality of the encounters was drastically reduced by the HP cushion. The choices a player makes are less meaningful when they have so little an effect as a tiny proportion of a monster's HP or a minor increase in the percent chance to hit.
Expediency does not have to come at the expense of an exciting, intriguing, engaging and rewarding experience. But when the rules prioritize that over all else- yeah. Get ready for a bland, boring game of Dicerolls and Disengagement.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I will say that I don't even find 'Fighter who shoots a bow' or 'Ranger' or 'Rogue' to be a concept, and anyone who comes to me with 'I want to play a [insert class here]' will find that I will say, "That's great but you need to worry first about your concept, and then we can worry about how you might best mechanically achieve it."

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But it's difficult to have a discussion about concepts in a broad sense. My comments apply more to an issue within the broader topic of concept. Many players I have encountered get tied to tightly into the class as a concept. It's not the class itself that is necessarily limiting, it is often the player that limits their preconceptions on what it means to be a Fighter or a Ranger.

And if a new player came into my game and said 'I want to be an archer', I might suggest ranger or rogue. But if they don't want to be a skill monkey or a woodsman, then they probably should be able to be a 'fighter who shoots a bow'.

This is where the topic becomes very edition specific. A 3E Fighter =/= a 4E Fighter. A 3E Fighter can follow an archery path. Following an archery path in 4E starts you at a different point.

 

[Garthanos]

One of the flaws of pure point buy systems is they tend to lack flavor out of the box. Creating that flavor can be a work load and for new players can be a real put off... HERO is bland bland bland bland bland .. until somebody plugs many many hours in to changing that.

Some Point based systems have serious gotchas... Gurps allowed building characters identical in flavor but with one all around superior and having the same skills powers and higher general ability on top of that.... all with identical point costs. For instance there was a gurps supplement who presented a Witch from Andre Nortons witch world and it was trivial to build it many times better... with absolutely nothing lost.

Hero also didnt pretend its point buy system would really stay manageable or balanced... it used a system of after the fact Caps.

Gurps had point costs that were for things which in actual play were almost always interacted with as just flavor.(Agelessness was incredibly expensive but provided no real impact on your character mechanically except for the incredibly rare in most play aging attacks)

 

[Nonei]

One of the flaws of pure point buy systems is they tend to lack flavor out of the box. Creating that flavor can be a work load and for new players can be a real put off...

I'm concerned with this too. I think a possible balance could be to have 'packages' or 'kits' with each one showing quite a number of different examples of what they could become.

For example, let's say it's a package that gives a starting character healing and a decent attack ability. It might be-

A character that grew up fighting on the rough streets that somehow has an innate sense for healing.

A farm boy (or girl) whose background is hunting animals and wrestling steers that has skills of healing (and knowledge of herbs) from patching up farm animals.

A devout holy person that has trained to become a warrior to defend their faith.

A medic/healer for an army that learned how to fight in their training, just in case.

And so forth. Those are just what I could throw out in a few seconds... they could definitely use a bit more flavor.


Then in the back of the book/pdf would be guidelines, how each package was built, and the point values for each ability, so that the DM or the player could easily adjust/adapt the packages to suit their concepts.